The Rawlsian Perspective Compared to Utilitarianism and Libertarianism

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Response Paper
Various philosophers have explored the concept of justice and welfare, and as such, several theories of justice have been put forward. Each theory comes with arguments in support of and against the theory based on their most basic premise. However, these theories consider different facets such as the recipients of justice, that is, whether the recipient is an individual or a group and the nature of the expected outcome, that is, whether it is maximization or equality. These same facets also form the basis of objection or acceptance of the theories. Through a critical analysis of Michael Sandel’s work on justice, this essay aims at drawing a comparison between Rawlsian and two other theories of justice namely utilitarianism and libertarianism.
The Rawlsian theory is built on the concept of equality as the basis of justice. Rawls challenges the traditional beliefs that social contracts are just merely because consent exists (Sandel, 119). For Rawls, justice can only be achieved if all members of the society come from an “original position of equality” (120) to ensure that the superiority of some individuals over others does not affect what actions are considered as just. It is thus essential to eliminate or reduce any pre-existing differences between individuals so that the principles of justice can be determined. Given that such a reality is not achievable, Rawl argues that the selection of principles that can ensure justice within a society should be made through a thought experiment (120). This thought experiment puts everyone in a position where they do not understand their fate in society; thus whatever principle they select reflects how they would want to be treated to ensure fairness. Consequently, Rawls proposes two principles of justice. The first principle, which takes precedence, is that each has an equal claim to basic liberties and rights under the law (128). The second principle, referred to as the difference principle, focuses on what happens when the “veil of ignorance” is removed. Under this principle, social and economic inequalities are allowed under the condition that they also provide the greatest benefit to the most disadvantaged members of society (129). Further, these inequalities should only be attached to the highest positions that are equally accessible to all members of society. These conditions make the Rawlsian approach more convincing and rational because the theory acknowledges the realities of life, that is, social and economic inequalities cannot be fully eliminated but can be shaped to ensure that some level of justice and equality is achieved for all. The Rawlsian approach is in extreme objection of utilitarianism, but in some way, it agrees with the libertarianism theory of justice.
In contrast, utilitarianism focuses on the outcomes and posits that actions that produce the maximum good for the greatest number of people are the most ethical actions. The central idea around utilitarianism is that when determining the morality of an action, collectivism rather than individualism should be considered. This is what makes Bentham’s utilitarianism controversial because it does not co...